Mud flung at Bill Shorten by rabid right shows he's a threat to Coalition

Mark Latham

It had to come, the character assassination of Bill Shorten. The Opposition Leader has been doing too well in the polls for Australia's right-wing hunting pack to leave him untouched.

Listen to any radio shock jock or ranting TV host and the drum beat has started. The hunting pack's star witness is a former Victorian Australian Workers Union official, Bob Kernohan. Earlier this month, he told the trade union royal commission that in the mid-1990s Shorten (then aged 28) urged him to ignore the rorting of union funds. This is precisely what the feral right wants to hear. It's a chance to smear Shorten and practise the politics of personal destruction.

As ever, the Prime Minister's lickspittle, Andrew Bolt, is leading the chase, asking, with mounting frustration: "How come the mud isn't sticking to Bill Shorten?" Bolt's News Corp colleague Jason Morrison has gone a step further, calling on the Labor leader to stand aside. In the way of these things, we can expect to hear a lot more about Kernohan's allegation in the lead up to the next election. Already, 2GB has it on a continuous replay loop. But how credible is Kernohan and his testimony to the royal commission?

A significant part of his evidence was seriously flawed, revealing a delusional figure who has reconstructed the memory of major events in his life. In wanting the mud to stick, Bolt is relying on someone who contradicted himself under oath. The details are set out in the commission's transcripts. A big part of Kernohan's public persona has been to portray himself as a whistleblower, the only honest man in the Victorian AWU 20 years ago.

Advertisement

At the height of attempts to silence him, he claims to have been bashed by union thugs in July 1999. In his sworn statement to the royal commission, Kernohan said that three men had set upon him in the outer Melbourne town of Melton, telling him to keep his "mouth shut" and to "stop talking to the press, you grub". Counsel assisting the commission Jeremy Stoljar seemed sympathetic to Kernohan's plight, complaining of how he had been "marginalised and victimised" as part of "the mistreatment of whistleblowers".

There's just one problem with this account. In an addendum to his witness statement, Kernohan attached his sworn statement to the Victorian Police tendered the day after the Melton bashing. In this version, two men attacked him, screaming out "give us your wallet, you prick" and "where is your money?" According to Kernohan, "they yelled this out several times". There was no mention of union intimidation. The incident was purely a robbery. The statement was signed off as "true and correct", acknowledging that any falsehood was "liable to the penalties of perjury".

Kernohan, in effect, has exposed himself as a fantasist – someone who, years later, has looked back on the Melton robbery and reframed it as a political event. He has converted an act of theft into something that matches his self-image as an AWU martyr. More worryingly, at the royal commission, he admitted to mental breakdowns and bouts of alcoholism – confirmation of how this troubled character was in no fit state to give evidence.

An obvious question needs to be asked: why did the commission allow Kernohan to testify? Stoljar and the royal commissioner, John Dyson Heydon, had an advance copy of his witness statement, from which it was clear he was about to give seriously flawed evidence. Anyone of average IQ would have seen the contradiction between Kernohan's 1999 police statement and his 2014 affidavit.

I believe an element of exploitation was involved. In their determination to fulfil their charter of uncovering problems in the Labor movement, Heydon and Stoljar appear to be willing to hear from anyone brandishing anti-Labor allegations, no matter how disreputable or unstable they might be. The commissioner and his assistant have disgraced themselves, as have the media urgers close to Kernohan (such as Morrison) who have exploited the poor man for political purposes.

Just like the Melton incident, Kernohan's recollections about Shorten have evolved over time. When he signed a statutory declaration in August 2010 alleging AWU rorting, his main target was Julia Gillard (who had recently become prime minister). Shorten was written up as a witness to Kernohan's claims, with no mention of impropriety. This confirms one of the golden rules of hunting pack politics: the intensity of the allegations against Labor MPs is in direct proportion to the threat they pose to the Coalition. Regrettably, the royal commission has become a star chamber. It's as if Stoljar has divided his witness list into friendly and hostile witnesses. The former are given a soft ride, especially if they claim to be whistleblowers.

On the first day of the commission’s hearings, for instance, Stoljar nursed another discredited figure, Ralph Blewitt, through his evidence. Most of Blewitt's statements were unbelievable, but Stoljar had him on life support, at no time excoriating the dozens of inconsistencies and convenient memory lapses presented to the commission. Welcome to Tony Abbott's Australia. A place where extreme legal power has been conferred on a Tory commission airing allegations against Labor leaders, past and present, from witnesses who are all over the shop.

Mark Latham is a former leader of the ALP.

Paul Sheehan is on leave.

194 comments

Say what you will about Shorten, it would be heart warming to see him rolled out of the leadership by the party at some stage. Wouldn't it just?

Commenter

Vincent Vega

Date and time

June 22, 2014, 10:42PM

The question about the reliability of witnesses appearing before the RC is a genuine issue - how can the veracity of their account be confirmed?If there is insufficient objective evidence to determine the 'truth', that creates fertile ground for speculation - and the projection of partisan wishful thinking; also, possibly malice. It is still early days, we should allow the process to takes its course - then, at its finish, some kind of conclusion may be possible.

Commenter

Howe Synnott

Location

Sydney

Date and time

June 23, 2014, 3:58AM

@Vincent Vega:The Royal Commission has been purely designed by the government to stigmatise Labor and its leadership. Like all conservative governments they look to the past for their justification and the all important future rates barely a mention. Steely eyed, in lockstep they march proudly backwards as they have always done. A vision for the years ahead barely rates a mention. Knights and Dames anyone?

Commenter

JohnC

Location

Gosford NSW

Date and time

June 23, 2014, 5:42AM

Latham's article would have you believe Shorten is as pure as the driven snow and that union leaders' actions do not warrant closer examination. Forget about a concerted effort from the Right to undermine Shorten, it is clearly the Left that is leading the charge. Also, for those of you brave enough to read the Murdoch press, you might want to check out Troy Bramston's article in today's The Australian, commenting on the ongoing feud between Shorten and Albanese. Talk about history repeating. This is exactly why a return to Labor now would be a return to the infighting madness that was the last six years.

Commenter

Flanders

Date and time

June 23, 2014, 7:15AM

The conservatives don't need the royal commission to damage Shorten. He is a very unpopular leader, as unpopular in opinion polls as the deeply unpopular Abbott. He was not even preferred leader by the ALP rank & file when they had a chance to choose between him and Albanese last year, and the ALP heavies had to step in and save Shorten's campaign. I predict that Shorten will never be PM, and that the ALP will only win government when he is replaced. The conservatives know this too, and only want to taint him to damage his already small chances of leading the ALP to victory in 2016, not to see him replaced.

Commenter

rudy

Date and time

June 23, 2014, 7:16AM

@ JOhnC the Royal Commission hasnt been purely designed by the government to stigmatise Labor and its leadership. What you seem to miss is there is a more specific reason as to the RC and what the Union movement does - so its in the country's interest not to have one main party linked to such - get it? Knights and Dames vs these RC issues -emm take your pic

Commenter

fruit picker

Date and time

June 23, 2014, 7:56AM

What Latham is forgetting to mention here is that all the allegations at the royal commission is from people who are from the union movement and who were associated in even leadership roles before

This shows that that there are still honest people in union ranks and they want to clean up the union corruption despite the apologising by certain sections of the media.

Commenter

regh

Date and time

June 23, 2014, 8:23AM

What worries me about Shorten we cant expect any improvement , he is doing his best. it doesnt worry me though Tony Abbott will be there for some time. Dont get too excited ( or worried) about polls a long time to go yet. As Einstein said ,( and I believe it to be so correct when I read the comments of some Labor party supporter ) " The only difference between genius and stupidity is genius has a limit". Have a nice day and relax Tony will take care of you.

Commenter

Bob Young

Location

Gold Coast

Date and time

June 23, 2014, 8:42AM

By rights Albo should be leader, that's what the party wanted; but not the union heavies. Shorten will loose the next election hands down, Albo could win.

Commenter

Uncle Quentin

Date and time

June 23, 2014, 8:56AM

Well I haven’t seen what Mark has said but let me say, I support what it is that he said....

Most Commented

Special offers

Hodson's daughter: Witness protection not safe

"I feel sorry for anyone coming into witness protection," says the tearful daughter of police informer Terence Hodson after the State Coroner delivered an open finding into his murder and that of his wife Christine in 2004.